get_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' usefully signals a non-mutating operation, and 'when ... permits it' hints at authorization checks. But it does not describe what happens when access is denied or how grants are resolved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though it does not make use of the available space to mention the list identifier.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is lean but incomplete. It lacks guidance on how get_list relates to get_public_list or list_my_lists, and with no annotations, the permission model remains too vague for an agent to confidently select this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains list_id or how the list is identified. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Read') and a clear resource ('a list'), and the permission condition adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate get_list from siblings like get_public_list or list_my_lists, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'when the configured account or grant permits it' describes a precondition, not a use case, and sibling tools such as get_public_list and list_my_lists are never mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.